Leominster wraps up voting on proposed slots casino

LEOMINSTER — As the casino referendum vote was in full swing today, so too were the drawn battle lines in downtown Leominster.

At Monument Square, overlooking City Hall, were the slot parlor's naysayers, while adjacent to the municipal parking lot were its supporters. As of 1:30 p.m., both parties were carrying signs and both fielded about equal numbers.

Walking between the two opposing forces were the voters casting their ballots on the most discussed issue to face Leominster in ages: whether the city wants a casino with 1,250 slot machines on Jungle Road. Early ballot counts at City Hall showed an above-average turnout, according to Cynthia Henderson, the warden for Precinct 5A

Ms. Henderson said voting was "holding steady," with 216 votes cast in Precinct 5A and 303 in Precinct 5B.

While most voters kept it to themselves how they voted on the slots parlor, Rita Hudson gave an enthusiastic "Yes" when asked.

Walking out of the side entrance of City Hall with the aid of the walker, Ms. Hudson said she thought the slots parlor was a good thing for Leominster.

"I think it will bring in jobs. I don't think it will be a fantastic amount, but every little bit helps," Ms. Hudson said. "And it will take the taxes off the elders."

Ms. Hudson also thinks a slots parlor could help shake off some the Plastic City's little town blues.

"I'm not a gambler. I don't play the slots. I don't go to the casinos, but I do like entertainment. So, if they're going to have some entertainment there, that would be nice. And a couple of nice restaurants would make me happy."

Not only did he feel that a slots parlor would be a bad thing for Leominster, Paul Tatro went so far as to say it's a bad thing for the whole region, including Worcester and the smaller surrounding towns.

"These casino people are throwing around some cash and getting all these signs and getting people all excited about the possibilities of money coming into the community, but what about all the other stuff that could come into the community too?" Mr. Tatro said. "People are going to be drinking down there. I don't know if they will be drinking to excess, but some may. And people are going to get hooked on gambling. Not all but some will. And that's going to contribute to crime in our community."

Addiction is the key component that could bring a lot of negative byproducts to this "family-oriented" community, he said.

"I don't care what you're addicted to. If it's alcohol, drugs, gambling, some people will get addicted, some people will do heinous things to get the money to fuel their addiction. And if you're desperate and you lose all your money, you're going to get more B&Es (breaking and enterings), more petty theft, more breaking and entering s into cars. … We don't need this here. This is not the community for that."

Ray Bissonnett, a Leominster native and member of Worcester Carpenters Union 107, said a slots parlor in Leominster makes perfect dollars and sense.

"Leominster is the gateway to the community," he said. "Basically, it's going to help the unemployed … 600 full-time jobs, minimum, with benefits. And the second thing is the fact it will employ 400 to 500 construction workers. OK. And the biggest thing that people don't realize is that the weekly payroll that will be generated once this casino is up and running is millions and millions of dollars a month, just in wages, that is going to be made by local people and is going to be spent locally. So it's going to benefit every single business in a 30-mile radius from here."

Mr. Bissonnett said some of the negative points that are brought up by those in opposition are unfounded.

"They bring up the crime thing. Well, if that's the case, why is the Leominster Patrolmen's Association for it? Why are all the police detectives, firemen, everybody who fights crime and has anything to do with law enforcement is for it?" Mr. Bissonnett said. "They know more about crime than we do, and they're for it."

Mr. Bissonnett also claimed that many of the sign-carrying "no people" have been bused here and are being paid by towns competing for the same gaming license. All of the people interviewed for this story said they lived in Leominster.

Corinne Morette said her biggest concerns about the casino are the potential increase in crime, the depreciation of home values, and gambling and drinking. Ms. Morette said she's getting a sense that more seniors seem to be favoring the slots parlor, while more homeowners with young families seem to be voting against it.

"We just want to try to decrease the loss if we lose," Ms. Morette said.

Ingrid Johansson said a slots parlor just doesn't fit in Leominster.

"The casino doesn't fit in ... with our beautiful parks here for the kids and the playing areas. It doesn't fit with our family-oriented nature here," Ms. Johansson said.

Both Ms. Morette and Ms. Johansson are concerned about the highways leading to and from the proposed casino site.

"Think about the people who are going to leave the slots parlor, sitting and drinking for a few hours," Mr. Morette said. "What are the chances of you not being on one of those roads on a Friday or a Saturday night with a person who has been drinking, passing you? Or hitting you?"

Mr. Tatro concluded that although he is opposed to the casino, he believes there's such an equal split in the community that it is too close to call the outcome.

"This is not going to be overwhelming, one way or another," Mr. Tatro said.

Lynn Reichert said not only was it important for her to come out to vote, she came out twice because parking was atrocious at Sky View Middle School in the morning.

Stricken with polio since she was a child, she took the long walk from her car to the polling station because she said she has seen firsthand what a casino delivers to a host community in the end is not always what they promised.

“I lived in New Jersey when the Atlantic City casino was built. They promised jobs and all that stuff. They brought all their workers from someplace else,” Ms. Reichert said. “Atlantic City promised to renovate the neighborhood and they destroyed it. But that's not our problem here. It's just the jobs.”

Acknowledging that she seems to be in the minority in her age group, Ms. Reichert said the deciding factor comes down to money, the promises of which she feels the casino developers will not deliver.

“Look at the money they've spent here. It's not what's in it for us. It's what's in it for them. The money is all going to go to them,” Ms. Reichert said. “I think it's all fake promises. Yes, I do. I do think it's a big mistake. We do need jobs. There's no question about that. But they're just waving the word jobs like a carrot.”

If you poll voters, some think the prospect of a slots parlor in Leominster is the greatest thing since sliced bread, while others think it will transforms at least one of the Twin Cities into a modern day equivalent of Sodom and Gomorra.

The agreement between the casino developers and the city is for a minimum of $3.8 million per year, broken down to $1 million in taxes per year, a figure that will increase 2.5 percent each year. The casino will also pay a $100,000 impact fee and a community benefit payment of $2.7 million. The company would also give the city an unrestricted grant of $250,000 before the start of construction.

Not only does a majority of people seem to have their minds made up before entering their respective polling places, there seems to be no one (at least those who are talking) that appear to be on the fence. They are 100 percent for or they are against.

PPE Casino Resorts MA needs a referendum vote win to move forward with its plan to build a 1,250-slot-machine casino. The corporation formed to develop the casino for the Cordish Companies of Baltimore. Should the casino win support of voters in Leominster, the next step would be to make a final application to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission by Oct. 4.

The Leominster proposal is one of three seeking a single slots-only casino license in the state. The other two casinos are proposed for Raynham and Plainville. The commission is expected to make a decision in December.